In the latest sign of change at the cable news network, the “Fair and Balanced” motto that has long been a rallying cry for Fox News fans — and a finger in the eye of critics — is gone. The channel confirmed on Wednesday that slogan and network have parted ways.

“The shift has nothing to do with programming or editorial decisions,” the network said in a statement. Instead, the slogan was dropped in part because of its close association with Roger Ailes, a network founder, former chairman and the originator of the phrase, who was fired in August in a sexual harassment scandal.

Interview questions from yesterday on Fox to President Trump:

Quote:

Mr. President, you face resistance on this bill; but, of course, you’ve faced resistance on the entirety of your agenda. Who’s been your biggest opponent? Has it been Democrats resisting? Has it been fake news media? Has it been deep state leaks? What’s -- when you think about it, what holds it up the most? [...] How frustrating is it to have former president Obama there, out there leading the resistance? [...] I opened up the failing "New York Times" and "The Washington Post" this morning. No mention at all of this bill that you're signing today. For veterans who are so passionate about this, it's such a historic bill, are they going to cover this? And if they don't, why don't they cover it the way they cover every breathless scandal in the media today?

Using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate, we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.

Who would have guessed?*

* Other than nearly every economist in history except partisan shill Paul Krugman.

Considering our past and current political climate, it's not *that* strange.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

Edit: When your best plan is "Let's pass literally anything we can scrawl out at the last second, taking coverage away from 15 million people, on a vague promise that it won't really become law" and it only falls one vote short of passing -- nice job there, guys.

Was reading about how the three GOP senators to vote against weren't really able to be threatened.

Collins is expected to run for governor of Maine after this term so she's just finishing out her time in the senate Murkowski managed to win with a write-in campaign before, a testament to her popularity. She's not up for re-election until 2022. Trump had the Sec of the Interior try to threaten her (or Alaska, really) but she's Chairman of the committee on energy and natural resources, by which the Dept. of the Interior lives and dies. She responded to the threat by placing a hold on a markup bill the Dept of Interior desperately needs done. McCain, well, has brain cancer and I guess that's when you can try voting your conscience. Plus he's still pissed about that "Only loser heroes get captured" thing.

It still feels a bit too much like a show to me at this point. Basically they know none of this is going to pass, but political needs are outweighing other things at the moment. There's too many people who promised to make a big deal about this, so they can't back down from it too fast or risk losing face. There's enough people that want the vote on people's records. For extra ammunition against dissidents in eventual primaries, and so they can say return to their own districts with an "I voted to destroy Obamacare" bumper sticker.

Allegedly at least four Republicans voted "Aye" only after being assured the vote would not actually pass.

I wouldn't be surprised. Pretty common for members of Congress to get the nod to cast a vote protecting themselves once the whip count is in. McCain, Collins & Murkowski were already willing to take any hits so no reason to have some other senator get primaried on the right.

Sometimes you do the opposite and, if an unpopular bill will pass by a single vote, get some others to agree to vote "yes" so no one person can be singled out as the one who was the "deciding vote". But, in this case, having the vote against be 52+ would just look worse for the GOP.